congress_committee_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds what the tool returns (full history, website URL, subcommittees, bill/report counts, related communications) but does not discuss rate limits, error cases, or data quirks. This is moderately useful but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One well-structured sentence that leads with the purpose and then itemizes the return attributes. No filler or redundancy – every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and a clear annotation, the description covers the main context: what the tool does and what it returns. It could improve by noting the relationship to sibling committee tools, but overall it is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both chamber and committee_code documented, including an enum for chamber and an example for committee_code. The description simply restates 'by chamber and committee code' without adding meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific congressional committee by chamber and committee code' – a specific verb and resource, with parameters spelled out. It distinguishes from list-style siblings like congress_committees, though not from the more specialized congress_committee_details_by_congress.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as congress_committees, congress_committee_details_by_congress, or congress_committee_full_profile. The context is only implied (use when you have a chamber and committee code).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.